RoyalDude wrote:Oh Lord, did Meds just put Lapierre in the 'Core' category and not Edler??? Did I read that right?

LOL @ Lappy as a core player.

I read somewhere that coach V loves the lap dog and given that he occupies or should occupy that spot on the roster that Marchand does on the bruins (not saying he is equal too)What does Lapiere have to do to become a core player?(...Cringes as he waits on consequences for asking a stupid question)

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:I think with Paul Kariya, it was more that he didn't want to play for Burke than the fact of not wanting to play in Vancouver.

Jovocop wrote:Home town discount is only for players who were born outside of BC but have played in Vancouver long enough... Just to name a few, the Sedins, Burrows, and Kesler... Players who were born in BC would only play here if the money is right, except for Hamhuis... Some BC-born players would not even want to play for the Canucks... remember Mr. Kariya?? Not Steve but Paul...

We will never know why and how. Perhaps Mr. Kariya did not like Burke or perhaps he did not like McCaw... At the end of the day, he did not play for the Canucks when he could.

RoyalDude wrote:Oh Lord, did Meds just put Lapierre in the 'Core' category and not Edler??? Did I read that right?

LOL @ Lappy as a core player.

Just want to make it clear that I am not trying to stir the pot.

What is the definition of a core player? Everyone seems to have a different opinion. My interpretation of a core player is that a player who the GM is trying to build the team around and a player who the GM would not trade away for nothing. Lappy is a perfect 4th line centreman for the Canucks. One that AV could use on the 3rd line. A good 4th line centre is not a dime a dozen. The Canucks have not had a decent 4th line centre for a long long time. Lappy might be not be someone like Kesler or the Sedins but he is a very useful player for the Canucks. Also, I highly doubt MG would trade Lappy away for a pick as long as the Canucks are a contender.

I think "core" for most people means that the player is part of a small group who the team will live and die with - they will be key in determining whether the team is successful on the ice or not.

If you're including Max Lapierre on that list then we are probably talking about well over ten players, which to me means a very large group (say two third of the roster?).

I like Lapierre and I think he may be capable of taking on a larger role on this team, but ultimately a fourth liner who is capable of playing on the third line is still at his very best not a top six forward.

Some of the elite "third line" players in the league could be considered core players in my books (Jordan Staal, Dave Bolland, etc) but not a guy who moonlights there and spends most of his icetime centering the line that wingers end up on as a form of punishment.

ClamRussel wrote:No kidding, but it wasn't between Mitchell & Hamhuis, it was between a 1 or 2 yr deal. Willie wanted 2 and Gillis wouldn't budge off 1. Mitchell deserved 2 and could have been the difference in the Cup run that year. The D core was never the same after he left, we didn't have that defensive type back there who could play tough, block shots etc. Instead we got Rome/Alberts/Tanev etc. Why did we need to get "younger"? Mitchell can *still* play as far as I'm concerned. Bieksa & Hamhuis could have been a pair and Mitchell would have been the no.5.

You're telling me Mitchell would have signed a 2 year $1.8M-2M contract when the Kings offered $3.5M? And is the criteria for determining whether the team needs to get "younger" dependent on whether the older guy can still play? Salo can still play too. Would you have re-signed him for $3.5M for two years (home down discounted) or gave him that money last summer? At the time, the question was whether Mitchell could still play. Gillis was reluctant to take the risk of finding out.

As dbr pointed out, Ballard and Hamhuis were acquired before Mitchell started full workouts. If not for Salo's timely injury Bieksa would likely have been traded. Had the Canucks re-signed Mitchell, Bieksa would certainly have been gone.

dbr wrote:I think "core" for most people means that the player is part of a small group who the team will live and die with - they will be key in determining whether the team is successful on the ice or not.

By that definition Lapierre is not a core player.

If you shuffle the words a bit and say that the core player is the guy who will live and die for the team, well then suddenly you change a few core names.....

As to our resident troll.

I said that Edler SHOULD BE a core player but I get the impression that HE (Edler) does not see himself (again Edler) as a core player. The responsibility that gets handed to him, and the overall fan/coaching/management/player opinion of him would indicate he is. But his yo-yo-like confidence and play over the last year indicate he might not see himself in that role.....yet.

I'll just re-quote that part since RD must have missed it.

Meds wrote:Edler should be a core player. I would imagine the guys in the room see him as part of the core, and I do see him as a guy that would be an important part of it if he played with a high degree of confidence even as much as 85% of the time, my question mark on Edler is that I sometimes get the sense that he doesn't see himself in that role yet, but he has the tools, just needs to become consistent and then it's a no brainer.

But sure. Go ahead and read what I wrote another way or omit a large part of it.

dbr wrote:I think "core" for most people means that the player is part of a small group who the team will live and die with - they will be key in determining whether the team is successful on the ice or not.

If you're including Max Lapierre on that list then we are probably talking about well over ten players, which to me means a very large group (say two third of the roster?).

I like Lapierre and I think he may be capable of taking on a larger role on this team, but ultimately a fourth liner who is capable of playing on the third line is still at his very best not a top six forward.

Some of the elite "third line" players in the league could be considered core players in my books (Jordan Staal, Dave Bolland, etc) but not a guy who moonlights there and spends most of his icetime centering the line that wingers end up on as a form of punishment.

I don't disagree with that. But the Canucks have been Cup contenders the past couple of years and having more core players usually goes with the territory. Take the Red Wings, I'm pretty sure most Red Wings fans would argue that guys like Draper, Malby, and McCarthy were part of the core of those Cup winning teams. Of course, the Canucks haven't won a Cup and so one can argue that the team's role players aren't core players. But hypothetically, had the Canucks won the Cup two years ago and won another one down the line with similar performances coming from Hansen and Lapierre, would you still not call them core players on those Cup winning teams?

It doesn't matter much. It's just labels and it doesn't matter what we think since whether a player is a core player depends on who Gillis thinks is a core player since he's the one building this team.

Umm no FAN guys like Draper, Maltby, and " McCarthy" were definitely not core players. Good additions and guys who played their role to a tee.......ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY. They are 3rd/4th liners and good ones at that.

As for Clam Russels rant about WM from the North end of the Island . Really???? LA blew everyone out of the water with their offer and good on them. I liked Willie a lot but the Canucks could NOT hang their coming season on a guy who might be healthy. Hindsight is 20 -20